Perhaps no state recognizes the importance of freedom more than Vermont whose state motto is "Freedom and Unity." But now, that freedom is under attack thanks to self-labeled "reformers" who are seeking to restrict political speech in Vermont.
The United States Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech." Why do politicians in Vermont want to limit speech in their state? They may think that enacting contribution limits is not the same as limiting speech or perhaps they believe the amount of money spent on politics is outrageously high. Both arguments, though, are easily refuted.
Everyone recognizes that in modern politics money fosters communication. To reach voters, modern campaigns rely on diverse forms of voter contact, all of which require money. Television is the most effective avenue for reaching voters and consequently the most expensive. Radio costs less but also makes less of an impact. Even grassroots activities like phone banks and door-to-door literature drops take substantial dollars.
More than thirty years ago, Chief Justice Burger knew that "limiting contribution, as a practical matter, will limit expenditures and will put an effective ceiling on the amount of political activity and debate that the Government will permit to take place." In fact, limiting expenditures seems to be one of the major goals of contribution limits in Vermont. However, Vermonters need to carefully consider the ramifications of this goal.
First, enacting contribution limits is unlikely to curtail overall political spending. The passage of McCain-Feingold at the federal level has done nothing to curtail political spending. Instead, contribution limits drive money away from candidate controlled campaigns and to independent expenditure organizations like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Independent organizations play an important role in providing political discourse and should always have the right to make their voices heard on campaigns. But enacting contribution limits that dampen the speech of candidates may allow these voices to dominate the campaign. The next step for the so-called "reformers" will likely be to limit independent voices. It is easy to see the slippery slope that begins once you start limiting speech.
Maybe Vermont politicians think that citizens are simply spending too much money on politics. After all, in 1998, Howard Dean spent $657,000 to be elected Governor. Four years later, James Douglas spent $1.125 million. Clearly, Douglas’s spending twice as much as Dean is cause for great concern, right? Not so fast. Dean was a popular incumbent who enjoyed the advantages of incumbency. In Douglas’s run he had no such advantages.
Moreover, in a historical context, even Douglas million dollar plus campaign should not cause great alarm. Adjusting for inflation, George Washington spent more money per voter in his run for the Virginia House of Delegates than Douglas spent in his run for governor. Above all, if money fosters communication and the goal is to have the most informed electorate, if anything Vermonters should be spending more money on politics – not less.
A cynic may wonder if the hidden goal of the so-called "reform" politicians is to entrench themselves in office. Since contribution limits were enacted at the federal level in 1974 the election rate for challengers has plummeted by 50 percent. Contribution limits as low as those proposed in Vermont may permanently cripple challenger campaigns.
"Reformers" are trying to force unity upon Vermonters by effectively ending competitive campaigns. Vermonters need to live up to the state motto and show that the "freedom and unity" can not be separated.
